← Back to Search
Jeff Raymond v. Bridgewater, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20231487)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records · Filed 06-28-2023
ClosedAppealPetitioner Won
SPR 20231487 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Jeff Raymond concerning records held by Bridgewater, Town of - Police Department, opened 06-28-2023. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20231487
- Case Type
- Appeal
- Case Subtype
- Initial
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Jeff Raymond
- Date Opened
- 06-28-2023
- Date Closed
- 07-13-2023
PDF Document
Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 13, 2023 SPR23/1487 Meredith Roselli Office Administrator Bridgewater Police Department 220 Pleasant Street Bridgewater, MA 02324 Dear Ms. Roselli: I have received the petition of Jeff Raymond, of the Bramanville Tribune, appealing the response of the Bridgewater Police Department (Department) to his request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 9, 2023, Mr. Raymond requested “any responsive documents and/or communications concerning your municipality’s police department and its compliance with the Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission’s duties under Chapter 253 of the Acts of 2020 to create a ‘database listing complaints against police officers,’ as detailed below.” Specifically, Mr. Raymond requested: [1.] A copy of the document your police department sent to the POST Commission, likely sent between November 2021 and June of 2022, providing the information requested by the POST Commission for its “database listing complaints against police officers” planned for May of 2022…. [2.] Copies of any relevant responsive communications between a) your police department and/or your town officials and b) the POST Commission in regard to the database planned for May of 2022 as detailed above and/or compliance with the reporting for said database between the dates of July 1, 2021 and December 31, 2022, broadly construed…. [3.] Copies of any relevant responsive communications within or between a) your police department and b) your municipal administration in regard to this database and/or compliance with this mandate between the dates of July 1, 2021 and December 31, 2022, broadly construed…. [4.] Information concerning “complaints against police officers” issued in the calendar year 2022 and through March 31, 2023, preferably in the same format One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832• Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us Meredith Roselli SPR23/1487 Page 2 July 13, 2023 used for the information sent to POST between November 2021 and June of 2022 for the earlier-mentioned database…. [5.] A copy of the document your police department sent to the POST Commission as sent to the POST Commission, likely sent between December 1, 2022 and April 9, 2023, to comply with the “2023 POST Commission Disciplinary Records Resubmission”…. [6.] Copies of any relevant responsive communications within or between a) your police department and b) your municipal administration in regard to this database and/or compliance with the “2023 POST Commission Disciplinary Records Resubmission” described above. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Att’y for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR23/1066 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 2, 2023). In my June 2nd determination, I ordered the Town to provide Mr. Raymond with a response to his request. On June 21, 2023, the Department responded. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Raymond petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/1487, was opened as a result. The Department’s June 21st Response In its June 21, 2023 response, the Department states, “[h]ere are all the requested documents, with the exception of one which is still pending litigation.” In a supplemental Meredith Roselli SPR23/1487 Page 3 July 13, 2023 response dated June 22, 2023, the Department states, “[t]wo of the largest police labor unions in Massachusetts have filed litigation against POST on a variety of issues related to police reform including disciplinary records. Those matters are still pending.” Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Raymond argues: [The Department] does not explain which record is subject to “pending litigation,” as there are at least three records known to exist from my request that have not been provided. Further, [the Department] does not provide any information on what court cases are about “disciplinary records,” and while I can make an educated guess as to what cases [the Department] references, the known cases of labor unions against POST are not about the POST Commission misconduct database. Further still, [the Department] correctly notes that “two of the largest police labor unions in Massachusetts have filed litigation against POST,” but my request has nothing to do with the labor unions in Massachusetts, as I have requested the public records held by Bridgewater. Based on Mr. Raymond’s appeal, it is unclear if the Department possesses additional records responsive to the request. The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). To the extent that additional records exist, I find the Department must provide them in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law or identify an exemption that applies to withhold the records from disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). Pending Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the records custodian to identify records being withheld and prove with specificity an exemption which applies. G. L. c. 66, § 10 (b)(iv) (written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is Meredith Roselli SPR23/1487 Page 4 July 13, 2023 based ...”); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. Consequently, I find the Department did not meet its burden of specificity in responding to the records request. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Raymond with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jeff Raymond